4A–D). The intensity of the reaction varied from moderate to strong. As it was expected, benign and normal GSK2399872A mouse samples mainly showed an apical and linear pattern. In Fig. 4E a positive reaction of a benign breast disease sample is also shown. Figure 4 Microphotographs of IHC of ductal breast carcinoma samples at different stages are shown (×400). (A) Stage I, (B) II, (C) III and (D) IV sections incubated with anti-MUC1 MAbs reacted with a non-apical mainly mixed pattern; in (E) a benign sample shows an apical linear positive reaction; content of a ductal lumen is also stained.

Analysis of correlations In cancer and benign samples, considering intensity of the IHC reaction versus Lewis Pexidartinib y/CIC levels, no significant correlation

was found. Lewis y/IgM/CIC and Lewis y/IgG/CIC values did not correlate as well. In benign samples, although there was not any statistical significance, Lewis y/IgG/CIC levels showed a decrease tendency to decrease while intensity increased (R2 = -0.66). Normal samples showed a high and significant correlation among staining intensity versus Lewis FK228 y/IgM/CIC and Lewis y/IgG/CIC levels (R2 = 0.885 and 0.967, respectively); in the case of Lewis y/IgM/CIC, a poor but significant correlation with Lewis y/IgG/CIC was found (R2 = 0.326, p < 0.05). In order to explore data, PCA was performed employing Lewis y/IgM/CIC, Lewis y/IgG/CIC, MUC1/IgG/CIC and MUC1/IgM/CIC. First and second component explained 68% of data variability; normal samples and benign samples appeared grouped (PC1 (-)) and separated from cancer samples which remained Idoxuridine spread. All variables weighed similar in the model, Lewis y/IgM/CIC, MUC1/IgG/CIC and MUC1/IgM/CIC predominated PC1 (+) while Lewis y/IgG/CIC was shared between PC1(+) and PC2(+) (Fig. 5). Figure 5 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was

performed employing Lewis y/IgM/CIC, Lewis y/IgG/CIC, MUC1/IgG/CIC and MUC1/IgM/CIC. First and second component explained 68% of data variability; normal samples and benign samples appeared grouped (PC1 (-)) and separated from cancer samples which remained spread. All variables weighed similar in the model, Lewis y/IgM/CIC, MUC1/IgG/CIC and MUC1/IgM/CIC predominated PC1 (+) while Lewis y/IgG/CIC was shared between PC1(+) and PC2(+). Rays and circles represent CIC analyzed and cases, respectively. C: cancer, B: benign, N: normal. Classical multiple correlations (p < 0.05) are shown in Table 1; in consequence, normal samples appeared grouped. Table 1 Spearman correlation coefficients among CIC levels   Le y/IgM/CIC Le y/IgG/CIC MUC1/IgM/CIC MUC1/IgG/CIC Le y/IgM/CIC 1 0.2147 0.4038 0.2847 Le y/IgG/CIC 0.2147 1 0.0739 0.3362 MUC1/IgM/CIC 0.4038 0.0739 1 0.5118 MUC1/IgG/CIC 0.2847 0.3362 0.5118 1 Bold letters indicate significant correlations. Lewis y and MUC1 expression as well as CIC levels did not show any significant difference among tumor stages.